High Court · 2025

S.A.No.612 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 04.11.2025 CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHIS.A.No.612 of 2025and C.M.P.Nos.21252 and 21253 of 20251. Arulselvan2. Balaiyan ...Appellants/DefendantsVs.Uthirapathi,represented by the Power Agent Kavitha ...Respondent/PlaintiffPRAYER:- This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the judgment and decree date 02.06.2025 made in A.S.No.39 of 2018 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruvarur confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2018 made in O.S.No.98 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvarur by allowing this Second Appeal.For Appellants :For Respondent : Mr.S.Duraisamyfor Mr.V.ElangovanMr.M.Tamizavel1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.612 of 2025JUDGMENTThis Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 02.06.2025 passed in A.S.No.39 of 2018 by the Sub Court, Tiruvarur.2. Parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and ranking before the Trial Court.3. According to the plaintiff, he purchased the suit property from one Irudhaya Mary on 17.07.2020 through a registered sale deed and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. His vendor Irudhaya Mary purchased the suit property on 14.09.1959. The defendants have no connection with the suit property. On the north of the suit property, within 20 feet banks of Vettaru River is situated. To the west of the suit property, the 1st defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the government land and on the eastern side of the suit property, 2nd defendant has put up a thatched shed and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff has been using the land on the north of the suit property to reach the river bank. In order to prevent the sunlight, to 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.612 of 2025prevent the rain water flow without any difficulties and to prevent the plaintiff from using the place situate to the north of the suit property, the defendants have been raising construction since 10.09.2016. He laid a complaint before the Koradacherry Police Station and no action was taken against the defendants. They have got manpower and therefore, suit is laid for permanent injunction not to raise any construction in the suit property.4. Per contra, the defendants would inter-alia contend that the defendants no.1 and 2 have been residing to the west and east of the suit properties for a long period and the land belongs to Arulmigu Panchanadeeswarar Swamy Temple and they have been paying twice a year mandagapadi to the concerned Gurukkal. Apart from that, Ranganathan, Pasupathy, Mahalingam and Kaliyaperumal have also been residing there in the land that belongs to the Temple. The plaintiff does not use the backyard and he has constructed toilet inside the house and that is in use. The plaintiff has laid a suit in respect of the property which does not belong to him and sought for dismissal of the suit.5. The Trial Court based on the divergent pleadings, framed the relevant issues. To substantiate the plaint details, on the plaintiff's side, three witnesses have been examined and nine documents have been 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.612 of 2025marked. On the defendant's side, four witnesses have been examined and three documents have been marked.6. Ex.A2 dated 16.07.2000 is the sale deed executed by Irudhaya Mary in favour of the plaintiff and the sale deed in the name of the Irudhaya Mary dated 14.09.1959 is Ex.A3. Survey number of the suit property is 120/2. From a careful perusal of Ex.A3 and Ex.A2 sale deeds, it is clear that the property was purchased by Irudhaya Mary through Ex.A3 and it was sold to the plaintiff through Ex.A2 on 16.07.2000. There is no issue with regard to the property purchased by the plaintiff. The issue is only with regard to the Government land situate to the north of the plaintiff's suit property. 7. Further, Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 are the Photos (five in number), Chitta and Adangal extract. The disputed property survey number is 103/3A. As per Ex.B2 and Ex.B3, revenue documents stand in the name of the Arulmigu Panchanadeeswarar Swamy Temple. The Executive Officer of the said Temple has been examined as D.W4. A careful perusal of the written statement as well as the evidence of the defendants, it explicates that the suit property situate to the north of the suit property, namely, the land in Survey No.103/3 A, does not belong to the defendants. In order to decide the core issue it is better to appreciate the cross-examination of D.W1. He 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.612 of 2025would depose that ''tHf;F brhj;J jpUthU:h; j?;ir rhiyapy; mike;Js;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ mt;thW gpd;g[wk; cs;s Mw;w';fiu gFjp me;je;j tPl;ow;F gpd;g[wk; g[Hf;fj;jpy; itj;J bfhz;L tUfpwhh;fs; vd;why; rhpjhd;/''8. The defendants would state that the plaintiff does not use the property to the north of their residence. P.W1 would state in her cross-examination that back door is closed and only windows are there. If the defendants are allowed to raise construction on the north side of the suit property, the plaintiff's right to air and sunlight will be affected and on the other hand, the defendants stand is not at all acceptable.9. It is relevant to note that no person can raise construction on the river banks and it is illegal, and they cannot claim any right over the river bed. Both side witness have acceded to the fact that on the rear side of the suit property, bank of Vettaru River is situated. In consideration to the plaintiff's sale deed, Ex.A2, in the boundary details, it is mentioned as 'to the north of the Vettaru river bank' that would go to show that the plaintiff's case is correct. On what basis the defendants 1 and 2 are raising construction on the north of the suit property is not properly explained and it is not the case 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.612 of 2025of the defendants that the land is purchased by them.10. Moving further, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he visited the suit property and filed a report. In the Advocate Commissioner report, “///nkw;go tPl;od; gpd;g[wk; tlf;Fg; gFjpapy; xU tPL fl;Ltjw;F Vw;ghL bra;ag;gl;L m!;jpthuj;Jld; tiuglj;jpy; fz;lthW cs;sJ/// mjw;F mLj;J tiuglj;jpy; fz;lthW tha;f;fhy; fpHf;F nkw;fhf bry;fpd;wJ/ mjd; rh;nt vz;/103-1gP MFk;;/ mjw;F mLj;J tiuglj;jpy; fz;lthW btl;lhW bry;fpwJ/11. It is relevant to note that this Court issued a direction in W.P (MD) No.1496 of 2014 dated 06.08.2014 directing the Government to issue appropriate direction, which should be mandatory in nature to all local bodies including Corporation, Municipalities and Panchayats, not to grant any planning permission for any construction that is put up in a water body and not to grant approval on lay out or building plan, if the land is located either in part or in whole, in a water body directing the Government to issue an Order under Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, making it mandatory to enclose a certificate of the Revenue Authority along with 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.612 of 2025building plan application, certifying that no part of the land is located in the water body and wrong information if provided, the person issued the certificate is to be held responsible. 12. More so, Article 51-A of the Constitution of India enjoins that every citizen of India has got a duty inter-alia to protect and improve the national environment including forests, lakes, rivers, wildlife and to have compassion for other living creatures. The State should never encourage encroachers of the water bodies in any form. 13. The plaintiff through oral and documentary evidence has proved that the property is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. As regards the obstruction to the right to air and right to sunlight, report of the Advocate Commissioner explicates that basement construction is found on the north of the suit property. As mentioned supra, the defendants have no right to the north of the suit property. Therefore, the First Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court have concurrently held that the plaintiff is entitled for the relieves sought for in the plaint are well-founded relieves and it was decreed as prayed for and the First Appellate Court also confirmed the same. In these circumstances, this Court does not find any good reason to upset the findings of the First Appellate Court. This Court also does not find any 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.612 of 2025infirmity or perversity in the findings of the First Appellate Court. No substantial question of law arise for consideration.14. Above being the position, this Second Appeal stands dismissed. Sequel to this, the judgment and decree dated 02.06.2025 passed in A.S.No.39 of 2018 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruvarur, stands confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.04.11.2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/NoMacCopy to 1.The Sub Court, Tiruvarur2.The District Munsif Court, Tiruvarur 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.612 of 2025R.KALAIMATHI, J.macS.A.No.612 of 2025and C.M.P.No.21252 and 21253 of 202504.11.20259/9